STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals, filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944, arise out of the common order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal [2014 (300) E.L.T. 413 (Tribunal)] refusing to condone the delay of more than 2200 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal.

(2.) Heard Mr. Rajnish Pathiyil, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the Department.

(3.) These appeals arise out of three sets of cases. In one set of cases, a proprietary concern by name M/s. Indian Steel and Allied Products, Chennai, its sole proprietor B.S. Garg, a broker, who arranged for selling their goods and two persons, who sold the goods under invoices, became the notices. In the second set of cases, a partnership firm by name M/s. Goyal Ispat Udyog, which now appear to have been converted into a proprietary concern, was the main notice. Its proprietor Sriram Goyal, four brokers of the proprietary concern and several persons, who issued bills for selling goods, were made notices in the second set of cases. In the third set of cases, a partnership firm by name M/s. Indira Ispat Udyog was the main notice. Two of its partners were the other notices. Three brokers and about 6 persons, who issued bills, were made co-notices.